Wednesday, March 26, 2014

Getting the History Right - 'Socialist-Zionism' NOT 'Socialism' and 'Zionism'

Borochov, Syrkin, Pinsker, Brenner and the other thinkers who developed our movement's ideology were all clearly writing about 'Socialist-Zionism' as the best way forwards for the Jewish People in exile, before the State of Israel existed. They were writing in direct contradiction to the 'Socialists' at the time, who saw the way forwards for the Jews as uniting with all the lower-classes internationally and joining the workers' revolution. They also wrote critically about the (non-Socialist) Territorialists and (non-Socialist) Zionists, because they were certain that the new Jewish State must be created on a basis fundamentally linked to Socialist values of equality. Before people such as Borochov and Syrkin, there were separate 'Socialist' and 'Zionist' ideologies, separate 'Socialist' and 'Zionist' movements and separate 'Socialist' and 'Zionist' youth movements. Only afterwards was there a distinct and separate 'Socialist-Zionist' movement, which attempted to unify the Jewish people behind this combined ideology of making a new egalitarian Jewish State in Israel.

The people who first put these new ideological theories into practice were the pioneers (chalutzim) of the 2nd and 3rd Aliyah, before either Habonim or Dror existed. Many of them were from Hashomer Hatzair. They developed the 'intimate kvutzot' like Degania, which became the first kibbutzim, and the beginning of the kibbutz movement. Each kvutza or kibbutz was an example of a community that combined freedom and equality - no centralized government with a nationalized economy forced people to share, but instead a group of idealistic individuals used their own free choice in order yo 'give acording to their abilities and get according to their needs'. Whilst this utopian lifestyle choice succeeded for a small group of people, it relied upon maximum trust, honesty and collective responsibility, and so was not easily maintained as kibbutzim grew, and certainly would break down on the level of the whole nation. Therefore, rather than building one huge kibbutz in Israel, the first kvutzot had a vision of a network made up of many smaller kvutzot and kibbutzim. Here we start to see the wider ideological implications - that very slowly over a long period of time, through great determination, vision, hard work, and 'dugma ishit', more and more Jewish people would use their freedom in order to choose equality - i.e. join a kibbutz. As more and more kibbutzim were built, and the network got bigger, gradually an entire sub-society of socialist communities evolved in Israel. The utopian, idealistic plan of 'Socialist-Zionism' was that evolutionarily, with many thousands of kibbutzim all over the country, linked together by the network of the Kibbutz Movement, the State of Israel would develop as a new exemplary society, valuing both freedom and equality.

Both Dror and Habonim were youth movements that developed after the unification of 'Socialist-Zionism', and after the creation of the first kvutzot and kibbutzim. We were inspired by the 'Socialist-Zionist' ideology, and we put it into practice (i.e. realized it - 'Hagshama') by following the example of our leaders ('Dugma Ishit'), who made aliyah to build the first kvutzot and kibbutzim. Habonim-Dror's 'Socialist Zionism' was expressed through freely choosing to join the Kibbutz Movement, as an attempt to pioneer a new, free, egalitarian society in Israel. This is obviously a very idealist vision, which takes a very long time, perhaps even forever, to achieve. From the 1930's until the 1980's it was clear in Habonim and Dror around the world that our ultimate hagshama was 'Chalutzik Kibbutz Aliyah' - i.e. furthering the goals of 'Socialist Zionism' by building a new kibbutz or by joining a developing kibbutz, in order to get closer to that utopian vision.

The debate about the future of Habonim Dror's ideology must begin to take place in the correct historical context of this unified ideology. The mistake of separating our ideology into 3-5 'pillars' or 'platforms' has led to huge misunderstanding of our own movement identity in recent years. We are not 'socialists' and 'Zionists', and we never were. We were 'socialist Zionists', and sadly it is no longer clear what we are, partially because the debate has been taking place in the wrong context, due to a lack of knowledge about our own history.

No comments:

Post a Comment